Skip to comments.Myth-Fact: Judicial Nominations
Posted on 04/20/2005 1:36:13 PM PDT by RWR8189
MYTH-FACT: JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS
Myth #1: Senate Republicans Are Attempting To Abolish All Filibusters.
Fact: Republicans Are Seeking To Reestablish The Senate's Traditional Role In The Judicial Nomination Process, Not Eliminate All Filibusters, An Initiative Some Democrats Have Supported In The Past.
In 1995, Democrats (Bingaman, Boxer, Feingold, Harkin, Kennedy, Kerry, Lautenberg, Lieberman, And Sarbanes) Wanted To End The Filibuster. In 1995, the only Senators on record supporting the end of the filibuster were all Democrats, nine of whom are still serving in the Senate. (Karen Hosler, "Senators Vote 76-19 To Maintain Filibuster," The [Baltimore] Sun, 1/6/95; S.Res. 14, CQ Vote #1: Motion Agreed To 76-19: R 53-0; D 23-19, 1/5/95, Bingaman, Boxer, Feingold, Harkin, Kennedy, Kerry, Lautenberg, Lieberman, and Sarbanes Voted Nay)
Sen. Bill Frist (R-TN) Is Attempting To Restore Senate Traditions And End Filibusters Of Judicial Nominations Only, As Evidenced By The Frist-Miller Proposal. On May 9, 2003, Senators Frist (R-TN) and Zell Miller (D-GA) introduced Senate Resolution 138. S. Res. 138 proposed to amend Senate Rules so that majority-supported judicial nominations would eventually receive a floor vote, but the proposal only applied to the consideration of judicial and executive nominations. (S. Res. 138, Introduced 5/9/03)
In Fact, Sen. Frist's First Senate Vote In 1995 Was To Preserve The Legislative Filibuster. (S.Res. 14, CQ Vote #1: Motion Agreed To 76-19: R 53-0; D 23-19, 1/5/95, Frist Voted Yea)
Myth #2: Filibusters Of Judicial Nominations Are Part Of Senate Tradition.
Fact: Having To Overcome A Filibuster (Or Obtaining 60 Votes) On Judicial Nominations Is Unprecedented And Has Never Been The Confirmation Test For A Nominee -- And In The Past, Even Democrats Have Called For Up Or Down Votes.
National Review's Mark Levin: "Each Of These Candidates Reportedly Has Enough Votes For Confirmation, But For The Unprecedented Use Or Threat Of Filibusters. The Majority Has Every Right And Reason To Change The Rule." (Mark R. Levin, Op-Ed, "Will On Filibusters," National Review Online, 3/21/05)
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) Previously Said He Would Fight Any Filibuster. "I would object and fight against any filibuster on a judge, whether it is somebody I opposed or supported; that I felt the Senate should do its duty." (Sen. Patrick Leahy, Congressional Record, 6/18/98, p. S6521)
In 1998, Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) Said: "We Owe It To Americans Across The Country To Give These Nominees A Vote. If Our Republican Colleagues Don't Like Them, Vote Against Them. But Give Them A Vote." (Sen. Edward Kennedy, Congressional Record, 2/3/98, p. S295)
Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) Said Government Does Not Fulfill Its "Constitutional Mandate" When Judicial Nominees Do Not Receive A Vote. "The basic issue of holding up judgeships is the issue before us, not the qualifications of judges, which we can always debate. The problem is it takes so long for us to debate those qualifications. It is an example of Government not fulfilling its constitutional mandate because the President nominates, and we are charged with voting on the nominees." (Sen. Charles Schumer, Congressional Record, 3/7/00, p. S1211)
Myth #3: Democrats Want To Continue Debating These Nominations So They Can Reach A Compromise With The Republican Majority.
Fact: The Democrats Have Threatened To Shut Down The Senate Rather Than Carry Out Their Constitutional Obligation To Provide An Up Or Down Vote On Judicial Nominees.
Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV): "[N]o Senate Right Is More Fundamental Than The Right To Debate. Should The Majority Choose To Break The Rules That Give Us That Right, The Majority Should Not Expect To Receive Cooperation From The Minority In The Conduct Of Senate Business." (Sen. Harry Reid, Letter To Sen. Bill Frist, 3/15/05)
Myth #4: Democrats Treatment Of Bush's Nominees Is Analogous To Republicans Treatment Of Clinton's Nominees.
Fact: President Clinton's Judicial Nominees Were Not Filibustered And Never Before Has A Judicial Nominee With Clear Majority Support Been Denied An Up-Or-Down Vote On The Senate Floor By A Filibuster.
"[Harry] Reid And Company Have Used The Senate Filibuster Rule To Permanently Deny Votes To Nominees With Clear Majority Support. That's Never Been Done Before." (David Reinhard, Op-Ed, "Judge Not Lest Ye Be ... Filibustered," The Oregonian, 3/17/05)
While Democrats Claim They Have Confirmed More Than 200 Of President Bush's Judicial Nominees, 10 Of The 52 Nominees To The Circuit Court Of Appeals Were Filibustered. (Jesse J. Holland, "Senate Confirms First Judge Of Bush's Second Term," The Associated Press, 4/11/05)
Myth #5: The Constitutional Option Is Unprecedented.
Fact: Senate Democrats Have Used The Constitutional Option In The Past.
As Majority Leader, Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) Initiated Four Precedent-Setting Procedures That Allowed A Simple Majority To Change Senate Procedures Without Altering The Standing Rules, Thereby Undermining Minority Rights To Filibuster And Use Related Tactics. (Sen. Robert Byrd, Congressional Record, 1977, pp. S31916-27; Sen. Robert Byrd, Congressional Record, 1980, pp. S4729-32; Sen. Robert Byrd, Congressional Record, 1979, pp. S31892-94; Sen. Robert Byrd, Congressional Record, 1987, pp. S12252-60)
· As Majority Leader in 1979, Senator Byrd Expressly Threatened To Use The Constitutional Option In Order To Leverage Successfully A Time Agreement On A Rules Change Resolution. "Let the Senate vote on amendments, and then vote up or down on the resolution. ... If I have to be forced into a corner to try for a majority vote, I will [change the rules] because I am going to do my duty as I see my duty, whether I win or lose." (Sen. Robert Byrd, Congressional Record, 1979, pp. S144-45)
· Byrd Led The Creation Of Precedents In 1977, 1979, 1980 And 1987 To Stop Filibusters And Other Delaying Tactics Previously Allowed Under Senate Rules Or Precedents. "Mr. Byrd led the charge to change the rules in 1977, 1979, 1980 and 1987, and, in some cases, to do precisely what Republicans are now proposing." (Editorial, "Sen. Byrd On Filibuster-Busting," The Washington Times, 3/7/05)
What's this whole "debate" thing about? The Democrats aren't debating, just stonewalling.
My suggestion is to simply end the "gentleman's filibuster" that currently exists and go back to the old-time, "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" kind of filibuster. If they want to stall, let'em stand up and talk for the whole time.
I imagine that the issue with these 10 is that they will change the balance of power in their respective courts, or they are in a court of great presence in which their presence and power could derail many liberal causes.
Does anyone have a list of the courts to which they're nominated and the balance of power in those courts?
Kinda puts it all together for sure.....
It needs to be published far and wide.
We need to BURY the Democrats with facts like this.
Yes ... Democrats DO piss me off.
If all of the Presidents currently pending circuit court nominees are confirmed, 11 of the 13 circuits will tilt "right," i.e., have a majority of Republican appointees. I don't know which the two leftovers are ("left"-overs--ha, I kill me!), but I'd guess the 9th and the DC circuit.
Judge Terrence Boyle (4th Circuit)
William Haynes (4th Circuit)
Justice Priscilla Owen (5th Circuit)
Judge David McKeague (6th Circuit)
Judge Susan Neilson (6th Circuit)
Judge Henry Saad (6th Circuit)
Judge Richard Griffin (6th Circuit)
William Myers (9th Circus)
Judge William Pryor (11th Circuit)
Justice Janice Brown (DC Circuit)
Brett Kavanaugh (DC Circuit)
Thomas Griffith (DC Circuit)
8 District Court nominees:
Paul Crotty (Southern District of New York)
James Dever (Eastern District of North Carolina)
Robert Conrad (Western District of North Carolina)
Judge Thomas Ludington (Eastern District of Michigan)
Judge Daniel Ryan (Eastern District of Michigan)
Judge Sean Cox (Eastern District of Michigan)
Michael Seabright (District of Hawaii)
Peter Sheridan (District of New Jersey)
Got the names from a good link: http://126.96.36.199/search?q=cache:mkIC_NivPVUJ:www.techlawjournal.com/topstories/2004/20041223.asp+bush+nominates+to+the+6th+Circuit&hl=en&client=firefox-a
I think you have just demonstrated the real reason these nominees are being opposed.
It is a balance of power issue.
When Rehnquist retires, there will not be must trouble with his replacement. That will simply be maintaing the current balance. Nor will the chief justice really cause much difficulty....again...it would simply be a replacement conservative.
However, when O'Conner quits all heck's gonna break loose.
This is the same dynamic, apparently, that's taking place on these circuits. The balance of power is changing.
Don't bet that there will 'not be much trouble' with Rehnquist's replacement. Rehnquist is a party hack. He could be replaced with a conservative. That would be three on the court. That could be REAL trouble on some issues.
It is to be devoutly hoped that O'Connor and Ginsberg both leave the bench in the next four years. Neither is worth a damn. Both could be replaced by far better conservative women.
I personally would like to see Alex Kozinski on the Supreme Court, but that's just me. I like the idea of a justice with a sense of humor. That guy's a riot. Plus, he's been on The Dating Game. Twice. Won once, too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.